67 votes

US President Donald Trump to issue executive orders to end birthright citizenship, limit gender identity — incoming official

74 comments

  1. DefinitelyNotAFae
    Link
    Yeah I'm worried about my college students. I've had multiple colleagues change their gender markers back to binary ones, despite being in IL, so their passport and documents will match. I'm lucky...

    Yeah I'm worried about my college students.

    I've had multiple colleagues change their gender markers back to binary ones, despite being in IL, so their passport and documents will match. I'm lucky enough to be ok with both she and they, so I've never changed mine.

    Fuck. It's starting.

    57 votes
  2. [35]
    smoontjes
    Link
    I guess it should not be a surprise, but it is now happening.. I'm very sorry for any American transgender folk here on Tildes :(

    I guess it should not be a surprise, but it is now happening.. I'm very sorry for any American transgender folk here on Tildes :(

    Trump also planned to recognize male and female as the only two biological sexes and to end federal diversity programs, the official said, describing them as "discriminatory programs."

    The policies will almost certainly face legal challenges.

    46 votes
    1. [34]
      updawg
      Link Parent
      Aren't there generally only considered to be two biological sexes? Like, yes, intersex people exist, but they actually considered biologically to have a different sex? I know it's still a bit...

      Aren't there generally only considered to be two biological sexes? Like, yes, intersex people exist, but they actually considered biologically to have a different sex? I know it's still a bit arbitrary, but I thought that's how it's usually expressed.

      5 votes
      1. [16]
        DefinitelyNotAFae
        Link Parent
        This is one of those questions that's way to complicated to answer simply. But like, not really. "Biological sex" is too broad of a category. Biology encompasses a lot and is never that simple....
        • Exemplary

        This is one of those questions that's way to complicated to answer simply. But like, not really. "Biological sex" is too broad of a category. Biology encompasses a lot and is never that simple.

        There's chromosomal/genotypic sex, phenotypic sex, hormonal influences, etc. Intersex people "biologically" have something differentiating them from one of these other subcategories. They could be XY, present female and have internal testes but physically appear (or be surgically altered in infancy to appear) female. What's their sex? Does it matter if we let them define their gender and exist in the world the way they want?

        Broadly most people have XX/XY but XXX, XXY, XYY, X0 are all also possible. It's also possible for those chromosomes to not align with someone's genitals or for hormone issues to lead to a different physical development. Plus if it's all about the organs and such, at what point are you no longer a woman if you have a hysterectomy?

        And then there's gender. What makes me a woman? Am I even one? I consider myself demigender because I'm like, woman-ish at best.

        The 2 sex default is an "ease of putting people in boxes" thing, and it's mostly about living in a society with two genders. Cultures that recognize multiple genders don't necessarily separate the ideas of sex/gender in the same way. Their default boxes are different so their perception of the situation is different.

        70 votes
        1. [15]
          Mullin
          Link Parent
          I'm not trying to be trite about it, but isn't biological sex tied to sexual reproduction, and from that perspective could be defined in a way of gametes and sex chromosomes...there are two sex...

          I'm not trying to be trite about it, but isn't biological sex tied to sexual reproduction, and from that perspective could be defined in a way of gametes and sex chromosomes...there are two sex chromosomes regardless of if you include aneuploidy. I guess I don't think it helps to try to attack the underlying concept of a biological gender binary when the ultimate goal is for people to have full autonomy over their gender expression and presentation just on the merits that it is their body their choice IMO

          2 votes
          1. [9]
            sparksbet
            Link Parent
            Biological sex is not exclusively defined chromosomally -- you almost definitely haven't had anyone test your chromosomes and yet you were still assigned a sex. Moreover, intersex people are...

            Biological sex is not exclusively defined chromosomally -- you almost definitely haven't had anyone test your chromosomes and yet you were still assigned a sex. Moreover, intersex people are widely mistreated by the medical field and subjected to unnecessary surgeries and other medical treatments without consent to force them to conform to the expected sex binary even when it is not remotely medically necessary. The conception of sex as a simple binary is definitely harming them there.

            26 votes
            1. [8]
              Mullin
              Link Parent
              ......I feel like we're quibbling over details, of course I know my sex chromosomes because I have a phenotype that corresponds with the presence of a Y chromosome. We do not need to try to...

              ......I feel like we're quibbling over details, of course I know my sex chromosomes because I have a phenotype that corresponds with the presence of a Y chromosome. We do not need to try to reinvent something or change a definition to get the desired outcome, we can change notes and rules based on what is ethical and moral. What I meant was that the sex chromosomes themselves are a binary. I'm not trying to dog whistle here, while intersex exists and I want them to be treated equitably and with proper consent and understanding from a medical perspective, it is not a normal phenotypical presentation or a preferred developmental outcome.

              4 votes
              1. [5]
                Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                Before I say anything I want to mention that this isn't meant as an attack and I'm happy that folks have stepped in to help educate you and that you're interested in educating yourself, as this is...
                • Exemplary

                I feel like we're quibbling over details

                Before I say anything I want to mention that this isn't meant as an attack and I'm happy that folks have stepped in to help educate you and that you're interested in educating yourself, as this is an important and admirable quality!

                But I also want to bring your attention to the fact that you are explicitly in the LGBT group, posting in a thread about a political action which is erasing and directly attacking folks. There are folks in here who are scared, upset, and who are facing dire consequences on behalf of a hateful act by a person in power. I would encourage you to think carefully about set and setting - where particular discussions are relevant and appropriate, when discussions should happen in the open as opposed to in private, and also about how much time and effort you should spend to educate yourself first, before asking to be educated by others, especially those who are likely currently emotionally drained and exhausted.

                27 votes
                1. [4]
                  Mullin
                  Link Parent
                  I wasn't the original reply in this direction, I was just commenting on the same themes. I think it's fine to have these conversations even during uncomfortable times. The point I was trying to...

                  I wasn't the original reply in this direction, I was just commenting on the same themes. I think it's fine to have these conversations even during uncomfortable times. The point I was trying to make wasn't to defend a gender binary, far from it, I think whether there is a gender binary doesn't matter for trans rights. I firmly am in the camp that people should be allowed to get whatever medical care they need or want, and I think it's fundamentally insane that we may live in a country soon where it's totally fine for an AMAB to go to the doctor and get testosterone but not an AFAB, for bigotry reasons. Ultimately that's what this is, bold faced bigotry. I feel like focusing on what they say compared to what they intend is ceding ground and fighting on the wrong terms.

                  Believe me, I am not speaking about this from a position of not caring, not being involved. It's because I'm frustrated and angry at the erosion of rights in this country. It's why it's important to understand that everything is connected, women's rights connected to LGBT, LGBT connected to T, so on and so forth. The bigotry won't stop on any minority. Maybe I'm rambling, or venting, or whatever, but I have just as much a notion to do that as anyone else. Please don't pattern match me to a type of guy you've encountered before

                  2 votes
                  1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    We're only talking about "biological sex" because that was the question asked. You're correct that none of this should matter. But the EO asserts that there is no gender identity, there is no...

                    We're only talking about "biological sex" because that was the question asked.

                    You're correct that none of this should matter. But the EO asserts that there is no gender identity, there is no nuance. There is male and female, immutable and god granted "at conception" and that's the end of it.

                    So yes it doesn't matter in many ways, and yet it does because they're making it matter. And I was answering the question of someone else, so when you say "why talk about it" ask them.

                    11 votes
                  2. [2]
                    Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    I hope you understand that I'm not attacking or making any judgements about you in particular. The point of my reply was to remind you (and anyone else reading this) that this is a shared space....

                    I hope you understand that I'm not attacking or making any judgements about you in particular. The point of my reply was to remind you (and anyone else reading this) that this is a shared space. There are others here, and we should do our best to have empathy towards them. This means that we need to balance our own feelings against the feelings of all others in the space! We need to consider that what's fine to us may not be fine to others, and we should anticipate the needs of those in our community. A healthy community takes care of the folks who are in most need, and right now this space needs to make room for those who have been repeatedly under attack and who are tired, afraid, and upset.

                    Please don't pattern match me to a type of guy you've encountered before

                    To be clear, I'm not pattern matching you to anyone. I apologize if I gave off that idea. I'm just trying to do my best to attend to the needs of the folks I'm most worried about right now and because I have the energy right now, that means speaking up on behalf of them.

                    11 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Comment deleted by author
                      Link Parent
                      1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                        Link Parent
                        "malice" will ping Deimos "noise" and "off-topic" both deprioritize the comment (and the thread under it) and ultimately can make it so responses don't ping The specifics on those two I'm vaguer...

                        "malice" will ping Deimos
                        "noise" and "off-topic" both deprioritize the comment (and the thread under it) and ultimately can make it so responses don't ping

                        The specifics on those two I'm vaguer on

                        However I think Mullin was not JAQing, but that we were potentially miscommunicating. I agree with them that sex and its intricacies shouldn't matter much if people are allowed to express their gender and live as they like. A different user started the subthread.

                        I think updawg was asking a genuine question

                        11 votes
              2. Foreigner
                Link Parent
                I want to point out that it is possible to have only X chromosomes and still present male externally. This is known as XX male syndrome. It is rare, but it does happen, and the only way to confirm...

                I know my sex chromosomes because I have a phenotype that corresponds with the presence of a Y chromosome.

                I want to point out that it is possible to have only X chromosomes and still present male externally. This is known as XX male syndrome. It is rare, but it does happen, and the only way to confirm is through genetic testing.

                19 votes
              3. Tannhauser
                Link Parent
                However, even disregarding X/-, XXX, and XXY, one can have androgen insensitivity mutations, leading to a completely female phenotype while being XY. This will be someone clearly binary, but also...

                However, even disregarding X/-, XXX, and XXY, one can have androgen insensitivity mutations, leading to a completely female phenotype while being XY. This will be someone clearly binary, but also at odds with their genotype.

                18 votes
          2. Johz
            Link Parent
            A useful phrase here is "bimodal distribution", which a distribution with two peaks, looking something like this. When talking about biology, a lot of stuff ends up being distributions, because...

            A useful phrase here is "bimodal distribution", which a distribution with two peaks, looking something like this.

            When talking about biology, a lot of stuff ends up being distributions, because biology is stubbornly resistant to doing everything the same every time. That means that characteristics tend to spread out a lot — we might say, for example, that chimpanzees are smaller than humans, but the largest adult chimpanzee is probably bigger than the smallest adult human, because height spreads a lot. For sex characteristics, those distributions are typically bimodal — there is an average man and an average woman, but most people are not average and therefore spread out around these two overlapping peaks.

            For things like gametes, there's obviously less of a distribution, in the sense that most people have either testes or ovaries producing exactly one type of gamete. However we run into a number of issues with this definition as well.

            Firstly, some people are born with neither testes or ovaries. They produce no gametes. If we base our definition solely on the gametes produced, these people have no sex. This is a problem for our categorisation system. We might take a handful of other approaches based on chromosomes or other specific biological markers, but as far as I'm aware, there is no biological marker that cleanly divides between male or female without exception.

            Secondly, the deeper we go down this rabbit hole, the less useful our definition becomes. When we talk about women-only bathrooms, we're not talking about chromosomes or gametes here, we're talking partly about the genitalia, and partly about other characteristics like how feminine a person looks. The same goes for pretty much all other cases where we make divisions between the sexes.

            That's not to say these definitions aren't occasionally useful, but usually only under very specific circumstances, and in those circumstances there'll be a very clear definition with an understanding of the outliers that might exist (e.g. in scientific discussions about genetics or animal behaviour). And again, it's important to remember that in our bimodal distribution, most people do align broadly with a platonic male or female ideal, it's just that we need to accept that there will be exceptions to these cases.

            15 votes
          3. [3]
            whispersilk
            Link Parent
            So is the argument that this person would be a male and should be forced to use men's restrooms and changing rooms, compete in men's sports, be treated as male in every official capacity? Like,...

            They could be XY, present female and have internal testes but physically appear (or be surgically altered in infancy to appear) female.

            So is the argument that this person would be a male and should be forced to use men's restrooms and changing rooms, compete in men's sports, be treated as male in every official capacity? Like, sure, they're female in every outwardly visible way, but if you were to take a look inside them with surgical instruments you would find sperm so obviously they're male!

            In a more general sense, there seems to be some conflation of different things here. You talk about the "biological concept of a gender binary" but the only thing that is binary is individual sexual chromosomes! X and Y are binary, but the possible combination of them in a single human body is not binary, and there are multiple possible sets of outward characteristics that can arise from each combination of chromosomes.

            And then the biggest issue, ultimately, is that this isn't just a quibble about accurate terminology or what-have-you, it's a discussion about policy that will categorize human beings and constrain their actions based on which category they're placed in. In that context, I would much rather talk about the diversity of full human beings than the diversity of individual chromosomes.

            To be perfectly clear, the biggest issue here is with the chain of thought that goes from "biological sex is exactly one of XX and XY, and XX always means vulva/ovaries/estrogen and XY always means penis/testicles/testosterone" to "all people with the XX set of characteristics are women and all people with the XY set of characteristics are men" to "we can define both public policy and medical interventions in terms of XX and XY and this will cause zero issues." If that chain of thought wasn't in play this "biological sex" conversation would... probably still be harmful, honestly, and would still be annoying to me, but would be a lot less harmful.

            9 votes
            1. [2]
              RoyalHenOil
              Link Parent
              Even the X and Y chromosomes themselves can get messy. Due to DNA translocation, it is possible for some X chromosomes to have a copy of the SRY gene (the gene that triggers male development) and...

              X and Y are binary, but...

              Even the X and Y chromosomes themselves can get messy. Due to DNA translocation, it is possible for some X chromosomes to have a copy of the SRY gene (the gene that triggers male development) and for some Y chromosomes to lack it.

              9 votes
              1. whispersilk
                Link Parent
                I wasn't aware of that (though it makes sense given that XX male development exists). Thanks for sharing!

                I wasn't aware of that (though it makes sense given that XX male development exists). Thanks for sharing!

                2 votes
          4. DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            Everyone else has answered you clearly. Bimodal distribution is the fancy term for having two boxes to put people in and most people fitting in those if the boxes are big enough but also the...

            Everyone else has answered you clearly. Bimodal distribution is the fancy term for having two boxes to put people in and most people fitting in those if the boxes are big enough but also the people on the left and right side of each box might also be fairly different.

            But I didn't attack the idea of the "biological gender binary" here - I attacked the idea of a "biological sex binary"

            The idea of a biological gender binary is also silly given flat out that other cultures had and have different numbers of default gender "boxes" and did for a long time before Christians had opinions about the matter.

            6 votes
      2. [2]
        Moonchild
        Link Parent
        that's neither here nor there. trump's administration is not expressing a positive position, but a political position, and one which is intended to oppress

        that's neither here nor there. trump's administration is not expressing a positive position, but a political position, and one which is intended to oppress

        37 votes
        1. HeroesJourneyMadness
          Link Parent
          Fully agree. More importantly though this particular part of the conversation IMO is where and how LGBT+ allies I think need to make inroads. There is a conversation that can and probably should...

          Fully agree. More importantly though this particular part of the conversation IMO is where and how LGBT+ allies I think need to make inroads. There is a conversation that can and probably should reasonably skip right over all the complexities of gender and sex and get right down to how and why this is oppression. Allies too often loose the plot trying to do sex & gender education instead of highlighting bigotry, hate, cruelty, malice, intolerance, and oppression.

          Cut to the chase and go on the attack is my point. It’s malice and cruelty and THAT is where the conversation can be won- but I need some help in constructing the damning argument as to how and why.

          Putting on some of my less enlightened family members’ POV… I would like to have a (or many) ready-made bedrock argument(s) that illustrate in vivid detail the wrongness. Without a nearly visceral explanation with examples, it’s too easy for non-allies to ignore nuance and complexity… to minimize and just ascribe “privacy” or scarcity of numbers to whitewash a topic they feel uncomfortable about and ignorant of.

          One more item. In thinking about solutions here, I believe allies look for and take incremental steps, as is the best way with so many social issues. (It’s called the progressive movement for a reason.)

          While I’m not non-binary, and this risks sounding callous, I believe this is one of those topics that aligns with the Trump strategy of creating noise and chaos to soak up media bandwidth with division where there doesn’t need to be. I became a semi-articulate ally by living in an LGBT+ friendly community for a decade+ and making friends. It wasn’t hard, or scary. It was mostly about not being an intolerant judgmental jerk. Trump is fomenting intolerance because every line of media about this topic is one less line he needs to worry about. He gets better control of the limited federal government political discourse.

          Framed like that, I don’t see any upside for even engaging with Trump on LGBT+ issues. It’s not a good-faith argument. Now- I know the man and his executive orders carry a lot of power and can’t be fully ignored either, but this line of thought about how it’s an asymmetrical “battle” with different objectives needs amplification.

          Okay. I’m done. Thanks for the discussion.

          6 votes
      3. sparksbet
        Link Parent
        "Biological sex" is defined by a grab-bag of different features that can vary in a large number of ways. There's really not a coherent way to define "biological sex" as only consisting of two...

        "Biological sex" is defined by a grab-bag of different features that can vary in a large number of ways. There's really not a coherent way to define "biological sex" as only consisting of two discrete categories without excluding intersex people.

        Plus, it's important to keep in mind that the people advocating stuff like this are not making the distinction between sex and gender either.

        22 votes
      4. [3]
        psi
        Link Parent
        Anti-LGBT folk don't tend to distinguish between sex and gender, so in their vernacular this is tantamount to saying that there are only two genders (and that trans people don't exist).

        Anti-LGBT folk don't tend to distinguish between sex and gender, so in their vernacular this is tantamount to saying that there are only two genders (and that trans people don't exist).

        17 votes
        1. [2]
          updawg
          Link Parent
          And my point is that by conflating them to such a degree, he's not even making a claim that makes any distinction of value for his side.

          And my point is that by conflating them to such a degree, he's not even making a claim that makes any distinction of value for his side.

          2 votes
          1. psi
            Link Parent
            Sure, but the erasure of language is also the point. The phrasing might be clumsy and inaccurate, but it's nevertheless in service of a larger project. Trump's speech was rhetoric, not law; it...

            Sure, but the erasure of language is also the point. The phrasing might be clumsy and inaccurate, but it's nevertheless in service of a larger project. Trump's speech was rhetoric, not law; it didn't need to be legally sound.

            21 votes
      5. [11]
        smoontjes
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        That's how it's usually expressed, yes. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but it doesn't matter. The only important thing about it is that it shouldn't matter. People can hold whatever opinion...

        That's how it's usually expressed, yes. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but it doesn't matter. The only important thing about it is that it shouldn't matter.

        People can hold whatever opinion they hold. Probably the majority only think there are two genders - but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't just be able to shrug that <0,5% of people are whatever way they don't understand. Thankfully most people just don't give a shit and I suppose that's the best we can hope for at the moment.

        People should have the right to be themselves as long as they don't harm anyone - and like all groups of people, be it the supposedly two genders, different sexualities, different races, different nationalities, different hair colours - I would guess that at least 99% of people are not harming anyone, probably 99,9%. Trans and non-binary people included.

        Maybe this is all a non-answer to your questions.. but it just shouldn't matter either way. This perceived "problem" is blown way out of proportion when only 0,5% of the population belong to this group that is being railed against. And if my number about 99% of people never harming anyone is correct, then how little of a percentage of the total population is that? 1 in 10000??

        Edit: apparently the number of violent crimes committed is 0,38%. So 99,6% of the population do not harm anyone physically.

        5 votes
        1. [10]
          updawg
          Link Parent
          I agree with you on everything you said, but my point is the distinction between gender and sex because they take issue with gender identity, so stating there are only two sexes doesn't seem...

          I agree with you on everything you said, but my point is the distinction between gender and sex because they take issue with gender identity, so stating there are only two sexes doesn't seem helpful for them. But that's not the only thing in the executive order, so there are still problems with it. I'd say you were the closest to actually addressing what I was talking about of everybody who responded, though.

          1 vote
          1. DefinitelyNotAFae
            Link Parent
            They don't believe that there is a difference between gender and sex. When they define sex they are, by their definitions, collapsing all the complexity of sex and gender into the two distinct...

            They don't believe that there is a difference between gender and sex. When they define sex they are, by their definitions, collapsing all the complexity of sex and gender into the two distinct immutable boxes. That is their world view.

            They're erasing gender identity not accidentally messing up by saying biological sex.

            10 votes
          2. [8]
            HeroesJourneyMadness
            Link Parent
            If you don’t mind though- why are you asking this particular question? I am interpreting it (possibly wrongly or just ungenerously) as being a bit deliberately particular in meaning and word...

            If you don’t mind though- why are you asking this particular question? I am interpreting it (possibly wrongly or just ungenerously) as being a bit deliberately particular in meaning and word choice.

            When the topic is one that involves gender, sex, sexual orientation, cultural norms, customs, tolerance, biology, education, personal experience, etc, etc… hyper-focusing on the 3-letter and ancient word “sex”, and insisting there is a binary across multiple clearly grey areas… this has been read by me as written like it’s framed kind of similarly (edit: to )like how an old roommate of mine used to argue.

            There’s a name for this technique but I can’t remember what that is anymore. It’s essentially how legal arguments are made- by stripping away context and complexities using very specific questioning. Frankly, what caused me to ask this is that it’s also a technique that police and abusers use in interrogations.

            So- I’ll ask again, why are you fixating on “sex binary” specifically? To me it seems as though you would like to ignore an enormous amount of complexity on a pretty important part of being human.

            9 votes
            1. [7]
              updawg
              Link Parent
              Yes, you are reading much too far into it. I'm just pointing out how they are afraid of transgender people but they are talking about sex and not gender. You say I'm fixating on it (I'm not, I've...

              Yes, you are reading much too far into it. I'm just pointing out how they are afraid of transgender people but they are talking about sex and not gender.

              You say I'm fixating on it (I'm not, I've made two short, simple comments), but my point is that they don't even seem to know where to focus.

              1 vote
              1. [6]
                HeroesJourneyMadness
                Link Parent
                Fair enough. Apologies if I misattributed some ulterior motive. TIL the term “JAQing” too. Maybe tomorrow I’ll see if I can locate the name someone gave to that aggressive word-mincing questioning...

                Fair enough. Apologies if I misattributed some ulterior motive. TIL the term “JAQing” too. Maybe tomorrow I’ll see if I can locate the name someone gave to that aggressive word-mincing questioning thing that’s kind of similar.

                3 votes
                1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  Sealioning? and yes it's JAQing off, I just felt like being slightly less explicitly crass.

                  Sealioning?

                  and yes it's JAQing off, I just felt like being slightly less explicitly crass.

                  2 votes
                2. [3]
                  gt24
                  Link Parent
                  Your comment made me look up what that meant. I seem to be a bit behind on random new acronyms. To save people a bit of a search, here is a Wikipedia page with more information....

                  TIL the term “JAQing” too.

                  Your comment made me look up what that meant. I seem to be a bit behind on random new acronyms. To save people a bit of a search, here is a Wikipedia page with more information.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions

                  2 votes
                  1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    Oh no, please don't call it new, it's been in Urban dictionary since 2010 and was used in the Glenn Beck era and with 9/11 truthers!

                    Oh no, please don't call it new, it's been in Urban dictionary since 2010 and was used in the Glenn Beck era and with 9/11 truthers!

                    6 votes
                  2. HeroesJourneyMadness
                    Link Parent
                    Huh. Well, Sea Lioning, JAQing off, and even the “Gish Gallop” seem related, they don’t feel like exact fits for this scenario where an aggressive interrogation is used such that every word choice...

                    Huh. Well, Sea Lioning, JAQing off, and even the “Gish Gallop” seem related, they don’t feel like exact fits for this scenario where an aggressive interrogation is used such that every word choice is challenged and debated.

                    I looked over Wikipedia entries on Interrogation, Sealioning, Proof by intimidation, Bad Faith, among others and am throwing in the towel on it for now at least.

                    Maybe when I get back to a full keyboard I’ll have more luck.

                    2 votes
                3. updawg
                  Link Parent
                  "JAQing off" is usually the verb form, in my experience, but that does not seem to be what you are describing.

                  "JAQing off" is usually the verb form, in my experience, but that does not seem to be what you are describing.

                  1 vote
  3. [3]
    l_one
    Link
    I hate this timeline. So very much. It's like we didn't learn from history, and now we are repeating it - Heil Fuhrer Trump it seems. This round of horrible history instead of putting Jews in...

    I hate this timeline. So very much.

    It's like we didn't learn from history, and now we are repeating it - Heil Fuhrer Trump it seems. This round of horrible history instead of putting Jews in concentration camps, it looks like it will be Hispanics first, non-binary individuals next...

    Hold on everyone. Hold on Ukraine.

    27 votes
    1. [2]
      tanglisha
      Link Parent
      Hitler started with the weakest, children and then adults with disabilities.

      Hitler started with the weakest, children and then adults with disabilities.

      12 votes
  4. [11]
    Bullmaestro
    Link
    I think I've given up on humanity. In the aftermath of a global pandemic, where we now face unprecedented failures to curb the worst-case climate change scenarios (the 1.5°C barrier was broken...

    I think I've given up on humanity.

    In the aftermath of a global pandemic, where we now face unprecedented failures to curb the worst-case climate change scenarios (the 1.5°C barrier was broken last year) and have been dragged into two of the deadliest international conflicts since World War 2, we chose to elect Dollar Tree Hitler into the White House.

    How the fuck did the United States go from its first black president to Fascism?

    23 votes
    1. [7]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [4]
        Bullmaestro
        Link Parent
        EVs aren't the solution, unless we find and adopt a better alternative to using lithium ion batteries. They're currently really expensive (borderline luxury) vehicles and we simply don't have...

        EVs aren't the solution, unless we find and adopt a better alternative to using lithium ion batteries. They're currently really expensive (borderline luxury) vehicles and we simply don't have enough lithium to meet global automobile demand. Some of the reserves we do have would require large scale mining operations (which would be ecologically damaging) to tap into them.

        Mass transit is what we need, but China and Japan are the only countries that have really adopted this mindset.

        13 votes
        1. PuddleOfKittens
          Link Parent
          This is nonsense - not only do we have a fuckton of lithium everywhere, and not only could lithium use in batteries be dramatically reduced (it would be slightly more expensive, but if lithium...

          This is nonsense - not only do we have a fuckton of lithium everywhere, and not only could lithium use in batteries be dramatically reduced (it would be slightly more expensive, but if lithium stops being cheap then it'll be worth it) but even if we didn't, sodium battery cars are already commercialized.

          The battery cost of EVs is ~$8000 last I checked, I think it might have gotten down to $6000 or $4500. When a car costs $40k+, you've got to look past just the battery - the real reason that EVs are expensive is they're fucking huge. China is selling $5k EVs with 4 seats; EVs are not inherently expensive.

          Some of the reserves we do have would require large scale mining operations (which would be ecologically damaging) to tap into them.

          All mines are ecologically damaging; people play up lithium but frankly the ecological damage from mining is unavoidable unless our renewables don't use any copper. This is a standard "the base is zero, right?" fallacy.

          I really wish electric cars weren't so practical - trains trains train trains - but the reality is that they work great, they just scale down better whereas ICE scales up, and people keep stupidly trying to scale electric cars up. Put a weight^4 per axle tax on vehicles and watch EVs dominate the market in 2 seconds flat.

          12 votes
        2. [3]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [2]
            Bullmaestro
            Link Parent
            There's a BYD showroom near where I live, and even then their cheapest EVs are about £28k, maybe about £12k cheaper than a Tesla Model 3. You could legitimately get a used sports car that's...

            There's a BYD showroom near where I live, and even then their cheapest EVs are about £28k, maybe about £12k cheaper than a Tesla Model 3. You could legitimately get a used sports car that's several years old for cheaper.

            1. [2]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                Do you mean the UK market? But also transportation and taxes and lack of domestic subsidies would make a difference I'd think?

                Do you mean the UK market?

                But also transportation and taxes and lack of domestic subsidies would make a difference I'd think?

      2. [2]
        teaearlgraycold
        Link Parent
        The Saudis seem to be taking diversification of income/assets seriously which gives me some comfort. Even those who are most incentivized to believe in an oil filled future are preparing for...

        The Saudis seem to be taking diversification of income/assets seriously which gives me some comfort. Even those who are most incentivized to believe in an oil filled future are preparing for alternatives. And per square meter solar panels are as cheap as fencing.

        Land will burn. Seas will rise. But it’s not going to spiral indefinitely.

        12 votes
        1. Bullmaestro
          Link Parent
          The Saudis are diversifying their income & assets out of necessity, because all they otherwise have is oil, and once the petrodollars run out, that's it. I will give credit where credit is due....

          The Saudis are diversifying their income & assets out of necessity, because all they otherwise have is oil, and once the petrodollars run out, that's it.

          I will give credit where credit is due. They're giving us the boxing matches and esports events we want (for the most part), and have been somewhat hands-off with their investments into tech and gaming companies.

          As for their megaprojects like Neom, I'm pretty sure they're overambitious, substantially behind schedule and have been ridiculed by every architect or civil engineer imaginable. I mean, look at Dubai and the fact that it feels like it was cobbled together by someone using an infinite money cheat in Cities Skylines without any thought as to how the city should function.

          12 votes
    2. Boaty_McBoatyson
      Link Parent
      Obama was a black pawn for Wall Street, aiding and abetting the gutting of the US middle class. There are no opposites between the actions of the democratic party (NAFTA) and the rise of fascism....

      How the fuck did the United States go from its first black president to Fascism?

      Obama was a black pawn for Wall Street, aiding and abetting the gutting of the US middle class. There are no opposites between the actions of the democratic party (NAFTA) and the rise of fascism. It's the same stair-step process back to fascism. Economic disenfranchisement is all it takes as many other point out here in the comments.

      Political blogger Jon Schwarz quoted from Iron Law of Institutions

      The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

      9 votes
    3. [3]
      infpossibilityspace
      Link Parent
      DW just released a pretty good documentary on this, they traced it back to the Newt Gingrich in the 80s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrhREluLdBs

      How the fuck did the United States go from its first black president to Fascism?

      DW just released a pretty good documentary on this, they traced it back to the Newt Gingrich in the 80s

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrhREluLdBs

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        boxer_dogs_dance
        Link Parent
        Don't forget Rush Limbaugh

        Don't forget Rush Limbaugh

        3 votes
        1. thumbsupemoji
          Link Parent
          I take it to (in reverse order) the end of the fairness doctrine, the rise of the 24 hour cable news cycle (Reaganism in general), the 1960 JFK-Nixon debate. Anyone who is wondering what the heck...

          I take it to (in reverse order) the end of the fairness doctrine, the rise of the 24 hour cable news cycle (Reaganism in general), the 1960 JFK-Nixon debate. Anyone who is wondering what the heck is going on needs to check out [wtf happened in 1971] (https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/) as much of the current goings-on are a feature, not a bug. Would it surprise you to learn that until the 1970s the Southern Baptist Convention formally supported abortion? Cuz it sure surprised me.

          1 vote
  5. Bet
    Link
    This will be an interesting administration to live through, to say the least. Trump, during his inauguration speech earlier, directly addressed a number of issues which have the potential to set...

    This will be an interesting administration to live through, to say the least. Trump, during his inauguration speech earlier, directly addressed a number of issues which have the potential to set us all back by about twenty, thirty years.

    Very dangerous beliefs being spouted from the White House, day one.

    22 votes
  6. [4]
    Rudism
    Link
    I don't follow the news much, and definitely don't consume any of the batshit right-winger sources... so I'm genuinely a bit confused around the politicization of transgenderism. Is part of what...

    I don't follow the news much, and definitely don't consume any of the batshit right-winger sources... so I'm genuinely a bit confused around the politicization of transgenderism. Is part of what they're advocating for that trans men should use the same bathrooms as cis women? And that trans men should be competing in sports alongside cis women?

    18 votes
    1. [2]
      aphoenix
      Link Parent
      You're trying to apply reasoning to something that is fundamentally unreasonable. They hate trans people. They just want to make things worse for trans people. Full stop, it's not about anything...

      You're trying to apply reasoning to something that is fundamentally unreasonable.

      They hate trans people. They just want to make things worse for trans people. Full stop, it's not about anything else. There's no reason underneath it; it's just hatred. Hating people who are trans is not about anything other than hating what is different, and being able to punch down on someone.

      If anything the reason that Trump and his ilk foment this sort of discord is to direct the seething populace at a target other than the oligarchy. People are dissatisfied, and if they are hating on the person across the street because that person is different from them, then they are not hating the rich billionaire who is raising the cost of living and making life worse for everyone.

      At the end of the day, that's what it's about:

      • many people fear what they don't understand
      • turning that fear into hatred stops people fearing the rich
      • the rich get richer and instead of a class war we get a culture war
      62 votes
      1. psi
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        It's a classic example of creating an out-group to unify against. Democrats continue to be vilified for seemingly engaging in elitist culture war issues, but these discussions often overlook the...

        It's a classic example of creating an out-group to unify against. Democrats continue to be vilified for seemingly engaging in elitist culture war issues, but these discussions often overlook the reality that these schisms were purposefully sowed by conservative activists like Christopher Rufo. Nobody other than academics and some professionals would care about critical race theory if it hadn't been for his (misleading) campaign against it, and he is likewise largely to blame for the current rhetoric against LGBTQ people in America.

        40 votes
    2. DefinitelyNotAFae
      Link Parent
      They don't think trans people should exist as trans people fundamentally. Trans men rarely get talked about so they're not really legislating about them. But ultimately they only believe in binary...

      They don't think trans people should exist as trans people fundamentally. Trans men rarely get talked about so they're not really legislating about them. But ultimately they only believe in binary immutable sex-based gender and the corresponding gender roles. Portraying trans women as threats and as "men in dresses" is part of the intent of turning moderates against trans people.

      36 votes
  7. [2]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. ThatLinuxUser
      Link Parent
      I genuinely feel the same way. I'm kind of glad that from as far as I can tell I should still be able to change my driver's license and my birth certificate. (I was born in Illinois and presently...

      I genuinely feel the same way. I'm kind of glad that from as far as I can tell I should still be able to change my driver's license and my birth certificate. (I was born in Illinois and presently live on the west coast.
      Not sure how long that is going to be true though.

      2 votes
  8. [4]
    whispersilk
    Link
    The full text of the relevant executive action, for reference. I'm not a lawyer but it sounds very bad. I pray that it can be fought and found invalid.

    The full text of the relevant executive action, for reference. I'm not a lawyer but it sounds very bad. I pray that it can be fought and found invalid.

    7 votes
    1. [3]
      Gaywallet
      Link Parent
      A lot of this is patently unenforceable. Telling the AG to ignore the supreme court ruling and prosecute shows a distinct lack of comprehension of the basics of US politics. But some of this can...

      A lot of this is patently unenforceable. Telling the AG to ignore the supreme court ruling and prosecute shows a distinct lack of comprehension of the basics of US politics. But some of this can and will have a very bad negative effect. We can only hope that the agencies will drag their feet and take no action for as long as possible as legal fights happen. I have zero confidence in the supreme court, however, they will likely fast track this as much as possible to weigh in politically. Where they decide to draw the line is a hard one to guess, we can only hope they primarily use it to 'defend women's spaces' on the federal level. Almost certainly they will revoke gender based protections and shift directly to this definition of sex.

      7 votes
      1. [2]
        Zorind
        Link Parent
        Whether or not it’s unenforceable doesn’t mean it won’t result in the things happening anyway. If the agencies and AG go along without fighting it, then it doesn’t matter. And that is pretty...

        Whether or not it’s unenforceable doesn’t mean it won’t result in the things happening anyway. If the agencies and AG go along without fighting it, then it doesn’t matter. And that is pretty worrying to me.

        Like, this is certainly the executive branch writing legislation, for all intents and purposes, with how it is trying to define terms - and not merely putting out “guidance” for the agencies actually under the executive branches jurisdiction

        I’m also very worried by the not-so-subtle definitions of man and woman being “at the point of conception.” That is explicitly there to target abortion, and that worries me as well.

        17 votes
        1. Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          You're not wrong, and they have wormed their way into many branches of the government. How things are supposed to work and how things are actually working are two different things, but many of...

          You're not wrong, and they have wormed their way into many branches of the government. How things are supposed to work and how things are actually working are two different things, but many of those "aligned" with him are not interested in dismantling the government in the same ways. Much of this will meet legal challenges and a lot of this won't stand. But some will and it's a major blow for sure, I'm just trying to set the stage for what it is the reasonable range of things happening - certainly not everything in this document and certainly not none.

          3 votes
  9. [2]
    smoontjes
    Link
    And now Trump has said that he wants to eliminate the very definition of the words sex and gender. Like, remove it from the dictionary and make it only 1 word. fuck sake

    And now Trump has said that he wants to eliminate the very definition of the words sex and gender. Like, remove it from the dictionary and make it only 1 word.

    fuck sake

    1 vote
    1. 0xSim
      Link Parent
      I understand that's not going to make that message and intent any less heinous, but dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words don't disappear because you decide to remove them from a...

      I understand that's not going to make that message and intent any less heinous, but dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Words don't disappear because you decide to remove them from a dictionary.

      What's more likely to happen, and not too dissimilar to what happened in France 2 years ago with the "inclusive language" (which is a form of spelling that merges male and female forms of a word), is a ban on some words from all governmental communications, effectively negating a certain legitimacy

      1 vote
  10. [12]
    streblo
    Link
    Perhaps Tildes is not the most accurate microcosm, but in my opinion if you want to understand why opposition to Trump has been ineffective just look at how many comments this post has vs. the...

    Perhaps Tildes is not the most accurate microcosm, but in my opinion if you want to understand why opposition to Trump has been ineffective just look at how many comments this post has vs. the Elon Musk salute post.

    People really need to stop giving attention to things clearly designed to steal their attention.

    27 votes
    1. DefinitelyNotAFae
      Link Parent
      This is also in lgbt, where some folks explicitly choose not to go.

      This is also in lgbt, where some folks explicitly choose not to go.

      21 votes
    2. [3]
      elcuello
      Link Parent
      I think you have an important point and I might fall into that exact trap you're mentioning with this comment. One of the most powerful men in the world right now is seen giving an undeniable...

      I think you have an important point and I might fall into that exact trap you're mentioning with this comment. One of the most powerful men in the world right now is seen giving an undeniable "Sieg Heil" two times in a row during a speech celebrating Trump. I don't know were you're from or how old you are but that fact alone is enough to overrule most other issues in this moment for me. He might "just" be a troll and I might have fallen for his attention grabbing but this I will not tolerate.
      But that's just me and I really appreciate people like you and other Tilde users who have the oversight and are able to see past this and focus on other really important issues that drowns in the chaos.

      13 votes
      1. [2]
        streblo
        Link Parent
        I get it, it's deeply unsettling. But that's exactly why he did it. And exactly why he did it in a way that's not a perfect replica. In my opinion the reaction it generates is so oversized...

        I get it, it's deeply unsettling. But that's exactly why he did it. And exactly why he did it in a way that's not a perfect replica.

        In my opinion the reaction it generates is so oversized compared to the effect that the constant drone of outrage helps allows swing voters to tune out Trump criticism.

        3 votes
        1. elcuello
          Link Parent
          I’m not totally convinced but I get your point and hope you’re right in a weird way.

          I’m not totally convinced but I get your point and hope you’re right in a weird way.

          1 vote
    3. [8]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. Vito
        Link Parent
        I think you might have misunderstood the comment. I interpret that they are saying that the salute thing is the distraction and that this is the real news people need to focus on.

        I think you might have misunderstood the comment. I interpret that they are saying that the salute thing is the distraction and that this is the real news people need to focus on.

        14 votes
      2. elcuello
        Link Parent
        Hold your horses. I think you misunderstood both our comments. The way I interpreted it was that we were criticising Trumps & Cos ability to divert the attention away from important issues like...

        Hold your horses. I think you misunderstood both our comments. The way I interpreted it was that we were criticising Trumps & Cos ability to divert the attention away from important issues like the ones in this thread not the other way around and furthermore appreciate that people here can see past this diversion. That was my intention anyways.

        12 votes
      3. [5]
        streblo
        Link Parent
        I think you should re-read what I wrote or ask me for clarification if I failed to convey my point correctly. I don't disagree with you. I'm just lamenting how Trump and co. can predictably...

        I think you should re-read what I wrote or ask me for clarification if I failed to convey my point correctly.

        I don't disagree with you. I'm just lamenting how Trump and co. can predictably generate outrage over some inconsequential thing that over time works to inoculate people from Trump criticism because it's all outrage all the time.

        5 votes
        1. [4]
          smoontjes
          Link Parent
          Okay, then clarify what you are talking about. Is it the Nazi salute or this transphobic policy? Because if it's the former then I did misunderstand but if it's the latter then I stand by my...

          Okay, then clarify what you are talking about. Is it the Nazi salute or this transphobic policy? Because if it's the former then I did misunderstand but if it's the latter then I stand by my comment above.

          1. [3]
            streblo
            Link Parent
            I'm talking about the Nazi salute. At the time of posting, this topic had 14 comments and the salute one had about 40 very quickly before it was locked.

            I'm talking about the Nazi salute. At the time of posting, this topic had 14 comments and the salute one had about 40 very quickly before it was locked.

            7 votes